About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Congressman Charlie Dent Invited to Witness Obama Sign S-CHIP Bill

I'm beginning to smell a buddy movie.

Late last month, Lehigh Valley Congressman Charlie Dent was one of just a dozen moderate Republicans invited to the White House to meet Rahm Emanuel, Obama's hatchet man. Then on Sunday, Charlie was one of five Pennsylvania legislators who watched the Super Bowl with the President. Last night, our Congressman made his third trip to Pennsylvania Avenue in the last eight days to witness the President sign the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIP) into law, which renews and expands the plan from 7 million children affected to 11 million.

I suspect in the next week, they'll be shooting hoops.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wanna bet that Sam Bennett now starts attacking Obama right out of the box as a traitor to "progressive" values on her scam blog that she is trying to get funded?

Anonymous said...

This will come back to haunt Charlie with conservative voters.


Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

SCHIP is the brainchild of big liberal Newt Gingrich. It was part of the welfare reform deal that Congress enacted in 1994 as part of that liberal Contract for America thing they were so famous for.

Allow me to rephrase the last commenters statement: It will hurt Charlie with stupid conservative voters. You know them. They're the ones who are bound and determined to make sure Republicans stay in the Minority.

Since Dent just won with over 50,000 votes I think he'll probably be okay.

Anonymous said...

Let's see - expand healthcare for poor children.

Yep, children up to age 30 in families making up to $80,000 a year.

Sounds like a great plan.

The minority of Republicans who side with Democrats are not "moderates" they are the Republican extremists.

The base is tired of R's who advance liberal policies.

The Republicans Study Committee in the House (the conservatives) actually offered an alternative plan that would provide 100% coverage for real poor children (under 18 and in poor families).

Which is the better policy?